1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Revenue's Penalty Appeals Dismissed Due to Lack of Evidence</h1> The Revenue's appeals against the cancellation of penalties under s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 1965-66 and 1970-71 were dismissed. The Appellate ... - Issues:Appeals against cancellation of penalties under s. 271(1)(c) for asst. yr. 1965-66 and 1970-71.Analysis:The Revenue appealed against the cancellation of penalties by the ITO for default under s. 271(1)(c) for two assessment years. The AAC allowed the assessee's appeals, stating that the initiation of penalty proceedings was not part of the assessment proceedings and that concealment of income charge was not proven. The Revenue contended that the satisfaction for penalty imposition was reached during assessment proceedings, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, it was found that the ITO did not direct penalty proceedings initiation in the assessment order, indicating lack of satisfaction during assessment. The penalty orders lacked essential facts supporting the concealment charge, leading to the conclusion that the ITO failed to establish a case for penalty imposition. The CIT(A) rightly held the penalty proceedings invalid, as the satisfaction was not reached during the assessment proceedings. The appeals were dismissed as they lacked merit.Conclusion:The appeals were dismissed as the Revenue failed to prove the satisfaction for penalty imposition during assessment proceedings, and the ITO did not establish a case for levy of penalties. The CIT(A) correctly canceled the penalties, highlighting the lack of essential facts supporting the concealment charge in the penalty orders.